ITAT Judgment contain Income Tax related Judgments from Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Across India which includes ITAT Mumbai, Chennai, Delhi, Kolkutta, Hyderabad etc.
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that cash deposits during demonetisation cannot be treated as unexplained when backed by audited books, invoices...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that non-specification of the precise statutory charge under sections 270A(2) and 270A(9) violated principles o...
Income Tax : The Delhi ITAT held that institutions engaged in preservation of environment fall under a specific charitable limb under Section 2...
Income Tax : The Tribunal held that CIT(A) cannot enhance income under Section 251 on matters not considered by the Assessing Officer during as...
Income Tax : ITAT Bangalore restored the Section 54F claim after noting that medical issues and portal difficulties prevented timely filing of ...
Income Tax : The issue concerns massive backlog in ITAT caused by unfilled positions and delayed appointments. The intervention highlights that...
Income Tax : A representation seeks doubling the SMC threshold due to inflation and higher dispute values. The key takeaway is that increasing ...
Income Tax : The tribunal held that a gift deed alone cannot establish legitimacy under Section 68. It directed fresh scrutiny of the donor’s...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT allows Sanco Holding, a Norwegian company, to compute income from bareboat charter of seismic vessels under Article 21(...
Income Tax : Learn about hybrid hearing guidelines of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Indore Bench, effective from October 9, 2023, offeri...
Income Tax : ITAT Ahmedabad held that reassessment under Section 147 was invalid as the Assessing Officer failed to show independent applicatio...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that cash deposits during demonetization could not be treated as unexplained income since the amounts were re...
Income Tax : ITAT Rajkot held that revision under section 263 was not sustainable where the Assessing Officer had already conducted extensive v...
Income Tax : ITAT Nagpur held that nominal donations received in small amounts could not be treated as non-voluntary contributions merely becau...
Income Tax : ITAT Mumbai deleted the addition under Section 56(2)(vii)(b) after holding that a 2.3% variation between agreement value and stamp...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi has revised its hearing notice protocols. Physical notices will now be sent only once, with subsequent dates availa...
Income Tax : ITAT Chandigarh held that ITO Ward-3(1), Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to issue notice to an NRI and hence consequently the asses...
Income Tax : Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri G. S. Pannu, Vice-President of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, as President of th...
Income Tax : Ministry of Finance notified rules for appointment of members in various tribunals on 12.02.2020 in which practice of judicial and...
Income Tax : Bhagyalaxmi Conclave Pvt. Ltd. Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata) In the remand report, the AO clearly stated that notice u/s 143(2) of the Ac...
Description: The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the core dispute of 2.46 crore bogus purchase disallowance, despite detailed submissions, due to a clerical error in the grounds of appeal. The ITAT ruled that this failure violated natural justice, set aside the appellate order, and remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh, proper verification and adjudication.
ITAT directs the Assessing Officer to freshly adjudicate the tax case of Meenaz Anjum Dayatar to allow her to claim cost of acquisition and indexation against the sale of a crore property, which was incorrectly taxed as unexplained income under Section 68.
The Ahmedabad ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order in Nidhiben Mrugeshkumar Shah Vs ACIT(OSD), restoring the addition dispute of ₹10,00,100 under Section 69A for fresh review.
The AO virtually passed an ex parte order regarding a70 lakh addition, ignoring the assessee’s detailed submissions and denying a proper opportunity. The ITAT upheld the CIT(A)’s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the matter for a fresh adjudication, confirming that violations of natural justice necessitate a proper de novo inquiry.
ITAT Ahmedabad partly allows appeal in Somnath Bandopadhaya v. ITO, deleting ₹2.27 crore addition under Section 69A after verifying explained bank deposits.
The Revenue treated a documented sale of gold, with payment received via RTGS, as a bogus accommodation entry solely based on the buyer’s failure to reply to a section 133(6) notice. The Tribunal held that concrete evidence, including the full bank trail, stock records, and invoice, outweighs a general investigation report or the non-cooperation of a third party, and deleted the unjustified addition under section 69A.
The ITAT deleted the entire Rs.3.94 crore Transfer Pricing (TP) adjustment, ruling that three companies involved in product development, distribution, and proprietary software (Kellton, Magnasoft, Interglobe) were functionally dissimilar to a captive software service provider.2 The Tribunal held that excluding these companies brought the assessees margin of within the Arms Length Price (ALP) range.
The AO passed a final assessment order without waiting for the DRP’s directions, even though the assessee had filed timely objections against the draft order. The ITAT ruled the final assessment was illegal and void ab initio because the AO violated Section 144C, and it remanded the matter to the DRP for fresh adjudication on merits.
The AO mechanically reopened the case and made a 2.86 crore addition based only on an investigation alert, without being able to identify the alleged property. The ITAT upheld the quashing of the entire proceeding, ruling that simple reproduction of external information, without independent application of mind or tangible evidence, invalidates the reassessment notice.
The AO made a protective addition of Rs. 9.70 crore based solely on the uncorroborated statement of a seller recorded during a search. The ITAT deleted the addition, ruling that a bare Section 132(4) statement without any corroborative evidence (like seized material, book entries, or proof of delivery) is insufficient to prove the cash transaction against a third party.
